UBI is just a bedtime story Elon Musk tells himself to help the super-wealthy sleep – Quartz

Elon Musk is the most wholesome visionary our era has produced. He is a benign idealist; a guy with his eyes on a horizon beyond money. Money? Musk doesnt care about that. He hopes only to elevate our minds, our bodies, and our roads to other planes.

Businesses, says the man who has founded so many of them, dont really exist. Capital, says the man with so much of it, is of no consequence to him. The main reason Im personally accumulating assets, he says, is to fund a multi-planetary future. I really dont have any other motivation.

Musk comes across as a tech monk who sees money as a means only to a good end. He claims to gather it only to rid the world of the blight of emissionsand to rid us of the problems of life on Earth at all. To help untether ourselves from those mortal chains and speed us through a tunnel unto paradise, he proposes a world with universal basic income.

UBI is a policy gift that Musk and so many others in the C-suites of Silicon Valley offer us as part of their vision of a sustainable economic future. UBI, says Facebooks Zuckerberg and eBays Omidyar, is the patch for the economic problems of everyday people. But what Musk and his colleagues tend to leave out of their compassionate public speech is that UBI is also a patch for their problems. Of course Musk, son of the neoliberal era, wants UBI to be instituted: Its just peachy for him and his businesses, as it means his consumers will have more income to spend on his goods. (Not that he cares about money, of course. Its all about innovation!)

UBI is just bedtime story that helps the super-wealthy sleep.But lets suspend our judgement for a minute. Lets overlook the fact that the man who says he couldnt give a hoot about money was once the CEO of PayPal. Lets also overlook that this committed environmentalist benefits by the sale of green credits and that Tesla posted profits due to industrial emissions.

Instead, lets believe that he, and the rest of Silicon Valleys elite, are ultimately acting in the public interest. Lets allow them all to appear as they would prefer: good liberals who want to use their money only to make the world a better and more automated place. They champion diversity (despite its lack in their own employee records), and they advocate for generous work conditions in California (while taking a markedly different approach to the labor they outsource to the Global South). Lets believe themlets say that their billionaire habits of capital accumulation, labor exploitation, and their reluctance to pay their taxes are all a means to a good end.

But lets not let them all off so easily when it comes to their determined and growing support for UBI. After all, this policy is not one confined to their own business practice, but something they wish to impose on states and nationson us. UBI is a hack that may well benefit its Silicon Valley advocates in the short-term, but itll compound income and social inequality for the rest of us for decades (especially if its applied in the gloriously simple spirit in which it is largely understood).

Heres the shameful secret not uttered in our favorite futurists TED-style presentations. The reason they adore UBI isnt to do with their commitment to lift a growing underclass out of poverty; thats just a bedtime story that helps the super-wealthy sleep. Instead, its more to permit spending on their goods by what remains of the American middle class. No one on a stagnant wage can currently buy the things that Muskand the rest of Silicon Valleywants to sell them. These billionaires champion a scheme whose prime result will be their profit.

UBI is an old economic proposition and one with some very different champions. The revolutionary Tom Paine proposed a version of it, as did Milton Friedman, the best-known architect of neoliberalism. The idea that an identical sum be paid by the state to all citizens as a right and not as a form of welfare or reward is one, were told, whose time has come.

Part of UBIs appeal for many everyday advocates lies in its apparently post-ideological nature. The fact that this prescription can come from both former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum and former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis stands to some as proof of its inherent theoretical strength. If an erratic Marxist, a neoconservative, and the guy who wants to send us all to Mars can agree, then partisan consensus for policy enactment is likely. It looks like a centrist solution.

If an erratic Marxist, a neoconservative, and the guy who wants to send us all to Mars can agree, then UBI enactment is likely.While it may be a solution that works to the advantage of the capitalist class and their friends in policy, it is likely to win our endorsement, too. Most of us in the West know very well that our incomes are dwindling along with our future job prospects, which will be lost to automation or the fluid global labor practice created by the neoliberal policy era. If we did not already know during 2007s global financial crisis that an economic regime change is needed, we know it now, just by looking at our bank statements.

This thing stands a real chance of being passed into national economic policy. And, if no other ideas are put forthsay, old-fashioned things like nationalizing ownership of companies, redistributing surplus to workers, or transforming corporate super-profits into health or education or bridgesit retains its shine. UBI now has fans from the material left, the right, and, in the form of Canadian prime minister (and poster-boy for photogenic progressivism) Justin Trudeau, the absolute center. Were liable, in the absence of any other proposals, to become fans ourselves. But most importantly, beyond the support of people and politicians, UBI has our eras true leadersthe billionaires of Silicon Valleyon its side.

UBI is a scheme whose intended consequences can be compared to what some economists have called the Walmart effect. When wages began to fall in the West in the market-friendly period we call globalization, Western workers had less money to spend. When these Western incomes diminished, profits for Western capitalists could have been threatened. Happily, for pre-Musk capitalists, labor exploitation was now occurring off-shore and the cost of many goods, along with the cost of labor, dropped. So sure, your wage may have remained stagnant for yearsbut you could still afford that set of discount linens upon which your nightmares of a Hunger Games future can quietly take place.

Now Musks beloved automation is taking jobs from both the West, where those soothing linens are now less affordable, and the Global South. The robotswhich are remarkable things, providing both the possibility of leisure and superabundance to us allwill take over many kinds of labor previously performed by humans throughout the world. This extraordinary moment in history will, almost certainly, make goods cheaper as the rate of investment in the variable capital of labor disappears. There will be far fewer pesky people demanding wage risesjust the constant capital of machines whirring along.

At this historic juncture, we have choices. We could, like Musk, encourage the state to pay us just enough UBI to keep innovative capitalists, who have made most of our labor redundant, innovating toward Mars. (Although, given the long habit of those who accumulate great wealth to avoid taxes, its not clear how this will be sustainable.) Or, we could find other ways to keep these now unemployed workers who accidentally innovated themselves out of jobs flush with cash. It was not Musk alone that produced these magnificent labor-saving devices, after allit was also our labor, and the labor of our ancestors. Maybe, if we look at things in a truly innovative way, the true and the sustainable social dividend we should be paid is not a few bucks of UBI, but a stake in Tesla itself. Perhaps he could offer us a wage, or even a dividend cheque, for our very useful assistance. If Musk does not, as he insists, care about ownership, then perhaps he could consider that a collective management of the companies built by the labor and innovation of the many is a better, more fulfilling, and long-term solution all around.

But just as the G20 members recently assembled to determine the future of nations not present to deliberate, Musk does not consult with those people who his public policies and private businesses will affect. If he wants to build a meaningful future for us, he might consider including us in that conversation. Our collective knowledge would be every bit as innovative as our collective labor has been in the past. Elon, surely, is not the worlds sole innovator.

But, this isnt going to happen. The powerful industrialists of the era will not admit that their innovations have impeded their own capacity to profit. They will not concede that we have a stake in a future that they feel entitled to manage.

UBI may guarantee that profits to the investment class will increase while creating a greater strain on the classes its most meant to benefit.We now hear plenty of talk about all the success small UBI pilot programs are having: over there in Finland, up in Ontario, even a privately funded program in Silicon Valley itself. But these isolated experimentswhich are usually moral rather than economic ones designed to prove that people who are in work will stay in work, even if their income increasescannot reflect the macroeconomic glitches the UBI patch may cause.

UBI inserted into our current economic software is likely to raise prices on many everyday goods. According to the late, noted US economist Hyman Minsky, one of these may be a rise in the cost of living. Even though there is UBI in your pocket, it is in everybodys pocket. Just as prices would be likely to rise with the introduction of a new basic wage, so they would with the introduction of UBI.

UBI absorbed into current conditions is therefore likely to provide no positive change for us. There is no way to guarantee that landlords or merchants will not raise prices to reflect the moderate gain in income. If youre already well-to-do, a price increase in the residential rental market or at the supermarket is of no great consequence to you. If youre one of the 51% of Americans earning less than $30,000 per annum, its likely to have a significant effect.

This may guarantee that profits to the investment class and merchants will increase while creating a greater strain on the classes its most meant to benefit. After all, the wealthier classes are also receiving UBI, which they dont need to spendthey can transform that extra cash into capital, as Musk would. This may have the effect of increasing wealth inequality, not eradicating it. The extra money (that Musk doesnt care about, remember) may well become meaningless due to UBI-led inflation.

UBI evokes, as do many of the phrases relished by Musk, a sort of realist utopia. It is certain, for a time, to safeguard the interests of a powerful few. But in the long-term, it is likely to diminish the purchasing power of the many. A true social dividend would not be a small state stipend whose terms are set by the billionaires of Silicon Valley.

The innovations produced not just by Musk but by centuries of human labor have made historys richest companies less likely to profit. The capitalism that Musk says he doesnt care about is crushed by the weight of its own contradictions, so he want to prop it up with a government subsidy. But coming from the guy who believes in Martian colonization, UBI, an old idea, is hardly the innovative thinking for which he should want to be known.

You can follow Helen on Twitter. Learn how to write for Quartz Ideas. We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

More:

UBI is just a bedtime story Elon Musk tells himself to help the super-wealthy sleep - Quartz